Threaded... Spencer R. Peterson wrote: > You have misread and misunderstood his comments. He attempted to direct > comments to a more appropriate forum.
That's what I was doing - trying to move the discussion from the RB list to the RB Coordination list. Yes, I understand that he was trying to move it to a local list, but if it was a local issue it should have never been put on the RB list which IS a national (actually international) list. Regardless, it was and it should have been immediately moved to the RBC list where the scope is the same but the list is dedicated to issues such as those. > This is a repeater builder forums while the web site that he sent you to is a local association that deals with TASMA and SCRRBA. This is not a national issue. Why should the rest of us have to read this stuff? It doesn't concern us. You complain that the discussion is here but then complain that he is trying to move it where it belongs? That doesn't really add up. Where it belongs is the RBC list as opposed to the RB (non-coordination) list if you're going to compare apples to apples. > You SHOULD have gone to the web site to see what it was about before asking > him what it was about. A website that he only referenced ***AFTER*** I asked? How should I have known what the URL was or even that there WAS a website? > The address has been posted several times. Not that I saw. The only reference I saw before my comment was to an acronym. > Or you can go to a Google group started by someone else for unknown reasons. > Clearly southern California hams have had enough of the BS of TASMA that they > are now forming groups to vocalize the issues. THAT should concern you. And that is where the national scope comes in. > The point I read clearly is this: TASMA and specifically Bob Dengler are tap > dancing. They have been asked to appear and justify their position. But for > Mr. Dengler to state that he is unaware of a 70cm band plan when he has been > a direct part of the absorbtion of SCRRBA and adopting by motion its current > band plan speaks for itself. He has attended meetings and conference calls on > this topic. I realize that he is helpful to this group, but that doesn't take > away his responsibility to the perception that TASMA and SCRRBA need and > intervention and are perceived as corrupt. Mr. Dengler chose not to answer in > this forum but perhaps he'll take notice when he is served with one of > several law suits that I am aware of. > > I don't have a dog in this fight and can, I believe, read objectively. The > bottom line is that if you don't want the discussion here then don't complain > when a suggestion is made that it be taken elsewhere and an address given. Complain when that happens? I'm the one that SUGGESTED it in the first place - that it should be on the RB list that deals with coordination, and not on the non-coordination list. Joe M.
